Quickly exit this site by pressing the Escape key Leave this site
We use some essential cookies to make our website work. We’d like to set additional cookies so we can remember your preferences and understand how you use our site.
You can manage your preferences and cookie settings at any time by clicking on “Customise Cookies” below. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Cookies notice.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Sorry, there was a technical problem. Please try again.
This site is a beta, which means it's a work in progress and we'll be adding more to it over the next few weeks. Your feedback helps us make things better, so please let us know what you think.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: 65-2024
I write in connection with your request for information which was received on 15th January 2024 as follows:
1) Please can you state for theft offences recorded by your force, the number in which the crime report text (described as modus operandi reports by many forces) contains a mention of "mobile phone" and/or "smartphone" in each of the following calendar years:
iii) 2021
2) Please can you provide a redacted copy of the free text crime reports for these offences recorded by your force in between October and December 2023
Please find the Warwickshire Police response set out below.
Q1 response: Searches were conducted for all theft offences, recorded during the stated periods, where the keywords ‘mobile phone’ and/or ‘smartphone’
are present within the MO Description / Incident Summary. The resulting records are set out below.
However, please note the following:
Year |
Total |
2019 |
233 |
2020 |
149 |
2021 |
147 |
2022 |
124 |
2023 |
159 |
Grand Total |
812 |
Q2 response: Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires Warwickshire Police, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:
(a) states that fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
The exemption applicable in this case is:
Section 40(2) Personal Information
Section 40 is an absolute class based exemption, which does not require evidence of the harm disclosure would cause and does not require consideration of a public interest test. That being said, where Section 40(2) is engaged, in order to make the exemption absolute there needs to be evidence that a Data Protection Principle would be breached by disclosure.
This exemption is engaged where disclosure of information relates to personal data of a third party or could lead to the identification of an individual, either from that information alone or combined with any other information from within the Police Service or public domain. In this case, providing copies of the MO Descriptions / Incident Summaries, even in a redacted format, is likely to lead to the identification of an individual. Such a disclosure would breach individuals’ rights under the Data Protection Act 2018, in particular Article 5(1) of the GDPR which states that personal data shall be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject.
This letter serves as a refusal notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act in relation to information being provided in a redacted format.
Information I am able to provide is set out below and is based on a summary of the text fields. Please note that this has been provided in alphabetical order and not date order.
SUMMARY |
A MOBILE PHONE BELONGING TO THE VICTIM HAS BEEN TAKEN |
INF REPORTING ITEMS HAVE BEEN STOLEN WHICH INCLUDE A MOBILE PHONE |
IP HAD LEFT MOBILE PHONE AND UNKNOWN OFFENDER HAS APPROACHED AREA AND STOLEN IT |
IP HAS ENTERED INTO A STORE WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL HAS BUMPED INTO IP AND IP BELIEVES THE INDIVIDUAL STOLE THEIR MOBILE PHONE. |
IP HAS REPORTED THAT AFTER A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN IN THE PROPERTY THAT THEIR MOBILE PHONE HAD BEEN TAKEN. |
IP LEFT BAG AND UPON RETURN OFFENDERS UNKNOWN HAVE GONE THROUGH BAG AND STOLEN MOBILE PHONE |
IP LEFT MOBILE PHONE BY MISTAKE AND IT HAS NOT BEEN LOCATED AND BELIEVED STOLEN. |
IP LEFT PHONE AT ADDRESS AND NOT HAD IT RETURNED |
IP LOST MOBILE PHONE AND TRACKED TO A LOCATION |
IP RECEIVED PARCEL BUT WHEN OPENED THERE WAS NO MOBILE PHONE INSIDE |
IP REPORTED THEFT WHICH WAS FOUND OUT VIA THEIR MOBILE PHONE SENDING BANKING ALERTS. |
IP WAS IN THE STREET WHEN OFFENDER RODE PAST ON A BIKE AND TOOK MOBILE PHONE. |
IP WAS OUT AND OFFENDERS UNKNOWN HAVE PICKPOCKETED THEIR MOBILE PHONE FROM THEIR POCKET |
IP WAS SHOPPING AND AT SOME POINT OFFENDER UNKNOWN HAS STOLEN MOBILE PHONE. |
MOBILE PHONE MARKED AS DELIVERED BUT NOT DELIVERED |
MOBILE PHONE STOLEN FROM PROPERTY |
OFFENDER REPORTED TO HAVE TAKEN MOBILE PHONES FROM PARCELS |
OFFENDERS UNKNOWN HAVE SEARCHED A BAG LEFT UNATTENDED FOR A SHORT TIME AND TAKEN A MOBILE PHONE. |
OFFENDERS UNKNOWN HAVE STOLEN A MOBILE PHONE LEFT UNATTENDED BY THE IP FOR A SHORT WHILE |
OFFENDERS UNKNOWN HAVE STOLEN MOBILE PHONE FROM THE TABLE AT VENUE. |
PARTY HAS TAKEN A MOBILE PHONE THAT IS JOINT OWNED |
PERSON/S UNKNOWN HAVE BY MEANS UNKNOWN REMOVED AND TAKEN A MOBILE PHONE FROM POCKET ON THE VICTIM'S PERSON |
REPORTING BELIEVES THEIR MOBILE PHONE HAS BEEN STOLEN AS IS REPORTED AS DELIVERED BUT DOES NOT HAVE PHONE. |
STOLE IP'S MOBILE PHONE FROM PROPERTY |
SUSPECT ENTERED STORE AND WHEN LEFT THE VICTIM NOTICED THEIR MOBILE PHONE WAS GONE FROM THE SIDE. |
SUSPECT HAS APPROACHED A TABLE WHEN UNATTENDED BY VICTIM. SUSPECT HAS PICKED UP VICTIM'S MOBILE PHONE FROM THE TABLE AND CONCEALED THIS BEFORE LEAVING. |
SUSPECT HAS ENTERED A SHOP AND TAKEN VICTIM'S MOBILE PHONE |
UNKNOWN OFFENDER APPROACHED THE VICTIM WHILST SHOPPING AND ENGAGED IN CONVERSATION, THE VICTIM LATER REALISED THEIR MOBILE PHONE WAS MISSING AND BELIEVES THE OFFENDER HAD TAKEN IT. |
UNKNOWN OFFENDER HAS STOLEN MOBILE PHONE CASES |
UNKNOWN OFFENDER(S) HAVE BY UNKNOWN MEANS STOLEN IP'S MOBILE PHONE |
UNKNOWN OFFENDER/S HAVE ENTERED A PRIVATE AREA AND STOLEN THE VICTIM'S PHONE. |
UNKNOWN OFFENDERS HAVE ENTERED A STORE AND STOLEN THE VICTIM'S MOBILE PHONE OFF DESK WHILST DISTRACTED. |
UNKNOWN PERSON HAS STOLEN A MOBILE PHONE FROM HANDBAG |
UNKNOWN PERSONS HAVE STOLEN THE IP'S MOBILE PHONE PRIOR TO DELIVERY. |
UNKNOWN SUSPECTS ENTERED STORE AND AFTER REALISING BEING WATCHED STARTED TO COMMUNICATE VIA MOBILE PHONES. SUSPECTS LEFT, NO ITEMS WERE STOLEN. |
VICTIM HAD A NOTIFICATION THAT PARCELS HAD BEEN DELIVERED BUT THAT THEY GET NOTIFICATIONS VIA THEIR MOBILE PHONE WHEN THE DOORBELL RINGS. VICTIM BELIEVES THE PARCELS WERE NOT DELIVERED AND WERE TAKEN. |
VICTIM HAS BEEN SHOPPING AND UNKNOWN PERSON(S) HAVE REMOVED THEIR MOBILE PHONE FROM INSIDE THEIR BAG. |
VICTIM HAS HAD BAG STOLEN WHILST SHOPPING WHICH CONTAINED ITEMS INCLUDING MOBILE PHONE |
VICTIM HAS REPORTED THAT MOBILE PHONE HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THEIR HOME ADDRESS. |
VICTIM IS THOUGHT TO HAVE LOST THEIR MOBILE PHONE IN THE STREET BUT TRACKED TO A LOCATION AND THEREFORE ASSUMED STOLEN |
VICTIM WAS OUTSIDE AND UNKNOWN SUSPECTS HAVE APPROACHED ON A MOTORBIKE AND TAKEN THE VICTIM'S BAG WHICH CONTAINED MOBILE PHONE. |
WAS OUTSIDE AND LOST PHONE AND WHEN TRACKED WAS SHOWING IN A STREET BUT THEN TURNED OFF LEADING THEM TO BELIEVE IT HAD BEEN STOLEN. |
Every effort has been made to ensure that the information provided is as accurate as possible.
Your attention is drawn to the below which details your right of complaint.
Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write or email the Freedom of Information Unit quoting the reference number above.
Yours sincerely
Freedom of Information Officer
Freedom of Information Unit
Warwickshire Police
PO Box 4
Leek Wootton
Warwickshire
CV35 7QB